Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Will Illinois cops ever hand out munchies to pot-smokers?

Last weekend, Seattle celebrated its annual Hempfest, a festival advocating cannabis policy reform. Considering that Washington recently decriminalized marijuana, it was a no-brainer that festival-goers would blaze more than ever.

How did the Seattle Police Department respond? With munchies. They passed out bags of Doritos—with stickers explaining the new marijuana law, I-502:

We thought you might be hungry.

We also thought now would be a good time for a refresher on the do’s and don’ts of I-502.

DON’TS

Don’t drive while high. Don’t give, sell, or shotgun weed to people under 21. Don’t use pot in public. You could be cited but we’d rather give you a warning.

DO’S

Do listen to Dark Side of the Moon at a reasonable volume. Do enjoy Hempfest.

The police followed this with a link for the munchie-eaters to familiarize themselves with I-502 . They signed off with a heart and “SPD.”

Putting aside how heart-warming it is to see police and citizens getting along so well, this interaction seems to symbolize the changing cultural attitudes toward marijuana in many parts of the U.S.

That being said, decriminalizing marijuana won’t be a walk in the park for any state.

Colorado also decriminalized marijuana at the same time as Washington, though officials of 35 towns and cities have responded by banning recreational marijuana shops. On the other hand, this January, Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado introduced H.R. 499, “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013.”

Both Washington and Colorado are still waiting to see how federal law enforcement agencies will espond to their state laws. These two states have been in the vanguard of U.S. marijuana-law reform. But otherwise, what’s the hierarchy of the laws?

States that legalize medical marijuana and decriminalize possession—Decriminalizing marijuana means that the state allows it to be used for medicinal purposes, and that if a person is arrested in possession of less than a specified small quantity for recreational use, he or she is subject to a fine instead of a criminal sentence. States in this category are Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.

States that legalize only medical marijuana. Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico and, now, Illinois.

States that decriminalize only possession of marijuana. Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina and Ohio.

It gets even more complicated. In Maryland, research centers may distribute medical marijuana to very sick patients. Philadelphia, New Orleans and Chicago are among the large cities that have at least partially decriminalized marijuana even though statewide prohibitions remain in effect.

This means that while U.S. federal law and many individual states still criminalize pot, the country as a whole appears to be moving away from the harsh laws step by step. Let’s also not forget that recently, our very own Illinois was in the media spotlight for legalizing the medical use of pot, sparking the chagrin of many anti-drug groups.

What will it take for Illinois to get to where Washington is today? Will Illinois ever legalize the recreational use of pot?

Posted at 04:58:00 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Seriously, either side of the aisle can make convincing arguments for legalization. Even in our small CoS community, I'm not sure how many conservatives are still for prohibition. Are there any democrats/liberals here that are still for prohibition? Is it too late to attach a poll to this post?

What would be the definitive difference, leaving aside the societally-imposed issue of legality, from you altering your mind with bourbon and other people altering theirs with marijuana? The legality CAN be changed, as it was with bourbon, after all. I've yet to see a convincing argument demonstrating why it shouldn't be.

Last night I watched a rerun of Craig Ferguson's show, and the guest was Dr Sanjay Gupta, who is a med reporter on some TV shows & for a network (CNN???). Anyway, they talked about marijuana, and he made an interesting point. Part of the reason pot was so maligned (with movies like "Reefer Madness") was the influence of drug/chemical companies who didn't want the competition, essentially (you can't patent a plant). This is similar to why herbs (used by ancient civlizations up to the Native Americans on this continent) aren't in greater use or investigated more thoroughly. In the case of pot, they had the whole "drug" thing - you know, gateway drug & all (the real reason it was a gateway drug was because in order to get it, you had to consort with people who were only too happy to tempt you with something harder). The drug companies put a lot of money into movies & other "information".

Fair question. Let me concede that there is a partial equivalence between bourbon and marijuana.

As I posted previously I drink bourbon chased by a beer only when I eat. And I drink bourbon only when I dine with the wife, friends, or at a pub bar. Second, I do not drink to alter my mind. Drinking enough to alter my mind will give me a detested hangover the next day. I drink as part of “fine” dining.

I am sure you have read those danger sign guides of being an alcoholic – e.g. drinking before noon, drinking alone, etc. There is very little difference between drinking bourbon in the manner of an alcoholic and smoking pot.

I am an occasional reader of this blog, this is my first time posting because this topic is interesting to me. I admittedly have not done much research on this topic and am trying to learn more. I don't really have a position either way at the moment.

One thing I have noticed is that the legalization movement has gained steam over the last 5-10 years based on the number of marijuana friendly laws passed and polling I have seen. Using the non-scientific measuring stick of traffic on message boards, I see about 10 supporters to every opponent. More admittedly anecdotal evidence - I estimate about 95% support amongst my friends who I have discussed this with. Which leads me to ask the question - what is the downside to marijuana legalization?

We often hear from both sides of the aisle that we should implement or repeal a law because the rest of the world is doing something we are not something or is not doing something we are doing. In this case, the rest of the world does not allow for the marijuana use (although with varying degrees of illegality) with the exception of Holland, and they are significantly walking back their policies to the extent that only residents can purchase the drug. So i'm wondering - is legalization as much of a slam dunk, win-win as many people would have us believe or are there significant risks and valid arguments against legalization that just aren't being heard at the same volume or are being suppressed by peoples' reluctance to or inability to counter the argument that a person should be able to do whatever they want to their body?

Seems to me that either alcohol or marijuana can be used responsibly or to excess. Though you are evidently not among them, many use alcohol to, more or less, alter their state of mind, as do many marijuana users. You seem to imply that users of marijuana ONLY use it "in the manner of an alcoholic." That's just not the case. There are many who use marijuana to relax in the evening the way others use alcohol. From your 11:06 post, I infer that you are advocating against the legalization of marijuana. Perhaps I'm wrong. If not, I'm just curious as to why a self-described conservative/libertarian would find that marijuana should remain illegal, essentially allowing the government the power to decide for individuals what is best for them, while alcohol is not subject to the same treatment.

The White House continues to rely on unverified, outdated and incomplete studies for its information, while ignoring any new studies that contradict its own position. In other words, for the White House and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, its 'reefer madness' as usual.

That is not as clear as you might think. Most of the towns passed TEMPORARY bans so they could see what the state laws are going to be and give them some time to come up with appropriate ordinances to manage the situation.

There is also a provision if the state does not come up with regulations within specific deadlines,any city clerk would be empowered to issue licenses in the name of the state. They wanted to make sure that did not happen in their town.

I am sure a few (Colorado Springs is no surprise) towns will keep the ban, but most are just putting in temporary restrictions until they thoroughly consider the situation.

In addition to the petrochemical companies not wanting hemp as a competitor in the textile industry, look up how Harry Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst spread misinformation throughout the world for selfish political and journalistic gain.

You post in part --- [From your 11:06 post, I infer that you are advocating against the legalization of marijuana. Perhaps I'm wrong. If not, I'm just curious as to why a self-described conservative/libertarian would find that marijuana should remain illegal, essentially allowing the government the power to decide for individuals what is best for them, while alcohol is not subject to the same treatment.]

There are good arguments against the WAR ON DRUGS.

As shorthand I describe myself as a MODERATE conservative/libertarian. Thus I am not going to advocate legalizing all drugs AT ONCE including heroin and LSD. Perhaps a gradual piecemeal approach is best. If so then we should start with marijuana in order to flush out the unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Supersize sugar water with coloring and artificial flavoring is stupid but should be legal. If pot is legal it still doesn’t make it better than masturbation. My original masturbation remark was proffered to flesh out “why the burning desire” to legalize pot?

First off, we share the same vice, or virtue, depending on how one looks at it...

I think yours is an interesting post. I, like you, do not have a vested interest in legalization, which is to say that I am not a weed aficionado. I've certainly not researched the matter thoroughly, but I have read the arguments on either side for many years. When you ask "are there significant risks and valid arguments against legalization that just aren't being heard at the same volume or are being suppressed?", I would only note that it seems to me that the advantages of volume and suppression have been enjoyed by the forces AGAINST legalization for a long time. As LizH pointed out above, there are certainly powerful forces that have an interest in keeping marijuana illegal. "Part of the reason pot was so maligned (with movies like 'Reefer Madness') was the influence of drug/chemical companies who didn't want the competition, essentially (you can't patent a plant)."

The government and many well-funded supporters of keeping marijuana illegal have had decades to make the case that this substance is actually very dangerous and deserves prohibition. If THEIR case were a slam-dunk, I'd think we would definitely know about it by this point, but the preponderance of the evidence seems to go in the other direction, which I think is a large part of why the support for legalization is growing.

That being said, your point about Holland and the rest of the world is a valid one, though I have no insight as to what is taking place with regard to their attitudes or laws. Of course, the influence exerted by pharmaceutical companies would certainly come into play overseas, as well as here.

I don't know, because the enforcement of its prohibition disrupts and adversely impacts people's lives every day? Because this legal enforcement costs a fortune, to no evident good end? Because there are people, right now, suffering chronic pain that might be alleviated by marijuana with less side effects (if any) than they experience from the legal alternatives? Because it has not been effectively demonstrated that there's any reason why a person should not be able to use marijuana in a recreational way in the same way that others use alcohol? Those would be some of my guesses.

I'm with Jakash on this one and agree with the reasons in Jakash's 2:23PM comment for why we should legalize. The same mentality should drive our decisions to get rid of seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, gambling laws, etc. Whatever you want to do to yourself that only affects you is fine, just leave me out of it (and I'm not going to get into the off-topic second hand smoke argument here except to say that it's foolish to pretend that people are forced to work at or patronize a bar - last comment from me on that).

I have a certain frustration with liberals who support some leave-me-alone laws even as they reject others for which similar logic should apply, but I take my allies as I find them, and I agree with a lot of liberals on this issue (so swords down, for now). I have a certain frustration with conservatives who make the worst slippery slope arguments to justify the war on drugs, especially on marijuana (so back up your anti-government rhetoric and hug a hippie or something).

steve, I'd forgotten that he mentioned hemp as well. The possibilities are endless for uses of hemp, except for those who would prevent its legalization (and the hemp plant that is used for fabric, etc, is not even the same strain that produces the other effects!).

Greg J, you almost had me agreeing with you, until your 2nd line about helmets & seat belts. If you are willing to pay for the long-term care or even the short term hospitalization of someone who was ejected from their car because they were not wearing a seat belt or helmet, I'm fine with that, but I'm not particularly interested in contributing to their medical fund - I doubt that they would have the money for that without some govt help. And I'm sure Jakash wasn't thinking of smoking & driving, which is no different than drinking & driving. Not smart, or good.

I don't drink much, but occasionally have a couple of beers or a couple of glasses of wine. More than that, I wouldn't feel very good, but two drinks will alter the way I feel and I enjoy that alteration. Not all the time, but it can be quite pleasant in some social situations. We'll be in Michigan for a few days around Labor Day and I expect to enjoy some mind alteration more than once ;-)

I'd very much like to agree and maybe we can. Are you sure there is that much of a difference between the medical care costs associated with someone who is ejected from his car because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and someone who gets lung cancer from smoking marijuana? I think we need to recognize that this is impossible to quantify because the severity of the problem in both instances is subject to so many variables. When I look at risky behavior, I'm left with the conclusion that we can't possibly police every kind of personal behavior so why bother drawing what look like arbitrary distinctions (at least to me)?

What do we do about the kid I just read about who got hit by the train because he was riding his bike on the tracks while listening to music through his headphones? How about the geniuses who dive into pools from their roofs and have that not quite work out for them? People are going to do stupid things and while I understand how we can incentivize safety (fines do work), I don't understand why we draw the arbitrary lines that we do. If the cost of medical care is your argument then you need to tell me why we don't outlaw a whole lot more things than we do, and why we'd consider legalizing an unhealthy activity like marijuana.

You couldn't just leave well enough alone and let that DELIGHTFUL first sentence at 4:12 stand in stark isolation, as a monument to a rare moment of agreement between us. ; ) Suffice it to say that I agree with LizH. We could debate the many differences between the various other off-topic matters you brought up for a dozen or so comments, but I'm leaving the sword down, for now, as you requested.

@Greg J: Here is a hypothetical for you. You are driving down the street in a world where seat belt laws don't exist (or worse, aren't mandated to be installed in all cars). You are buckled in because you spent the money for seat belts and you have a brain.

You have a lapse of concentration, and run a stop sign or perhaps make a left turn across oncoming traffic. The driver of the vehicle that hits you is exercising his right to be a fool and is not wearing a seat belt. He is launched through his windshield and dies a gruesome death on the pavement in front of you. You live the rest of your life with the memory and guilt of that event. You were the proximate cause of a person's death, which would almost certainly have been avoided if that person were belted in.

The decision of that person to not wear a seat belt has affected the rest of your life. You are too smart to believe that the decision to not wear a seat belt is strictly personal and has no effect on anyone else.

I acknowledge that there are arguments for seat belt laws but your hypothetical doesn't suggest one of them. All you are doing is presenting an accident scenario made worse by the unfortunate actions of the victim. I could present worse scenarios and all it does is show that accidents are indeed unfortunate. What if I owned a pool and a neighbor toddler drowned in it? The lack of attention by his parents combined with my ownership of a pool has affected the rest of my life. It's terrible but, yes, accidents do happen.

The point I'm making is that liberals twist themselves into knots trying to justify their pro-marijuana stance while wanting government to forbid other harmful activities. It doesn't make any sense to me. Let's just leave everyone alone to do whatever they want as long as they aren't directly hurting or bothering anyone else.

"The point I'm making is that liberals twist themselves into knots trying to justify their pro-marijuana stance while wanting government to forbid other harmful activities"

There is no twisting into knots. Many liberals believe that pot prohibition is far more harmful to people's lives than pot itself and the evidence is clearly on their side. Pot prohibition wrecks lives and the science is firmly against your assessment of significant harm to pot smokers.

Not wearing seatbelts? The record of carnage is clearly established. Prohibition on riding in a car unbelted does not have a record of wrecking lives. Is there a huge criminal enterprise built around this prohibition on driving unbelted? A pro-pot legalization person who favors seatbelt laws is consistent in wanting to mitigate harm.

I understand your position, based on consistency of liberty and personal responsibility, but that's not the liberal paradigm for judging law and by their lights, they are being consistent.

"I take my allies as I find them, and I agree with a lot of liberals on this issue (so swords down, for now)."

"liberals twist themselves into knots trying to justify their pro-marijuana stance while wanting government to forbid other harmful activities."

My, you've got a twitchy sword-finger. Back to the battlements! ; ) Though I would agree if you suggested that my complaining about off-topic comments is like JerryB (hypothetically) griping about somebody else commenting too much!

Dr. X,

"A pro-pot legalization person who favors seatbelt laws is consistent in wanting to mitigate harm." I think that pretty well covers it.

There is some truth to your characterization of me. My guess is that Zorn keeps me on board because people engage me, this increases thread length, which in turn increases views of CoS. Look at how many engaged me on this thread alone.

You have two options -(1) Urge Zorn to ban me. Zorn knows that that might be doing me a favor or (2) Urge others to ignore me.

"Pot prohibition wrecks lives and the science is firmly against your assessment of significant harm to pot smokers." Ok, again, I'm cool with the idea of marijuana legalization but please don't insult our intelligence by trying to frame it this way. All we see are public service announcements condemning the consumption of cigarettes because of lung cancer and various groups wanting to put graphic warnings on packs. Lung cancer isn't significant harm? Do what you want to do but smoking is harmful and that's a plain, scientific fact.

"Not wearing seatbelts? The record of carnage is clearly established." If you want to be scientific about this, you have to at least acknowledge that there is a question about whether there are more people who don't wear seatbelts or people who smoke who harm themselves and the relative degree of such harm. Respectfully, your reasoning is unusually lazy here.

"but that's not the liberal paradigm for judging law and by their lights, they are being consistent." It doesn't look like they are being consistent but let's take a step back for a second. I don't mean to pick on you and I have a serious question - can you describe the liberal paradigm for judging law in the public safety context? It looks like they are all over the map to me.

Anyway, can you answer my challenge to Dr X? I do understand the argument that the pro-marijuana legalization position undercuts the criminal element. If that is what you want to base it on then I'm fine with that, and we can end the discussion on another note of agreement. I'm puzzled by the argument about health though. Actually, I'm not. That argument just plain doesn't work.

"but I like to think I live in a better society than that." My concept of a "better society" is one in which government leaves people alone to live their lives as long as they do so without bothering anyone else. Based on that criteria, we don't have a good society. Your concept of a better society appears to be one in which the government looks out for people and saves them from themselves. Based on that criteria, we don't have a good society either because in many instances we are left to do as we please. The problem with our policies is that the logic behind them is so faulty and arbitrary in so many cases - e.g., alcohol is legal and pot isn't. I can jump off my roof into my pool in full view of my neighbors but I have to wear a seat belt in my car. This ad hoc approach to personal risk is nuts no matter what your point of view.

@GregJ: When I say "better society," I just don't mean "good choices" mandated by law. I mean voluntary choices that benefit persons other than the "decider."

Back in the day, I jumped out of airplanes for a while. I wore my seat belt as I drove to and from the drop zone, even though it wasn't mandatory then (I think).
I knew I was more likely to be T-boned during my drive than be hurt in the jump.

And, yes, I acknowledge that choosing to jump out of an airplane is selfish, and could have brought tremendous sadness into my family. So no one is consistent all the time.

I'm pleased to agree with you. I completely agree that we should make voluntary choices to benefit others and be as polite and unselfish as possible. I don't find your jumping out of airplanes to be selfish as it's a fairly safe activity under the right conditions.

I hope I won't shock you by telling you that I really don't like it when the law gets involved in voluntary decisions that only directly affect the individual making them. We are all a little bit inconsistent but that doesn't mean the law should be. It's what I'm getting at in my remark to Dr X above. When it comes to mandating personal safety, the law is an absolute mess and would benefit from a critical look at similar situations.

I'll confess that I'm inconsistent too. For example, I'm not wild about the legalization of prostitution because I think it's exploitive. However, I'm willing to give up that objection if it means getting the government out of personal decisions that don't harm others.

@Greg J: "I really don't like it when the law gets involved in voluntary decisions that only directly affect the individual making them."

Here is where we either disagree or don't understand each other. Decisions such as whether to wear seat belts or a motorcycle helmet or many other decisions that either are legislated or not DO DIRECTLY affect other people.

My son was involved in an auto accident that was entirely his fault. Both the car he was driving and the other car were totaled. Thanks to seat belts and air bags he and the 3 people in the other car all walked away uninjured (physically, anyway). What was thankfully only a dramatic property loss could have resulted in my son being responsible for the deaths of 3 people...something I know he would carry as a burden for the rest of his life, as would his mother and me as well.

Whether the people in the other car were wearing seat belts because of the law or because they were just reasonably intelligent, I don't know. I DO know that the decision by them to buckle up spared my family many years of regret and guilt, and I am grateful.

"please don't insult our intelligence by trying to frame it this way." Even though that was directed at Dr. X, right back atcha, buddy. I assume that you're aware of how little "smoking" is required to gain the desired effect from today's much more powerful marijuana. To compare the risk of lung disease from this to smoking 2 or 3 packs of cigarettes a day is not logical. Also, you don't NEED to "smoke" marijuana at all to enjoy its effects, if you're worried about lung disease.

"there is a question about whether there are more people who don't wear seatbelts or people who smoke who harm themselves and the relative degree of such harm" Now, I'm gonna have to redirect the "respectfully, your reasoning is unusually lazy here" back at you, as well. You're going to compare the risk of harm from smoking marijuana to the risk of harm from going through a windshield at 65 miles an hour? Granted, the risk of a crash is not great, but the possibility of dire consequences from that risk far outweighs the risks associated with judicious marijuana use.

"Anyway, can you answer my challenge to Dr X?" No, I can't offer a general "liberal paradigm for judging law in the public safety context." As for support for marijuana legalization not being consistent with support for seat belt laws, they're apples and oranges, to me. Two completely different issues. For the reasons I stated at 2:23 yesterday, I think society would benefit in many ways from legalizing marijuana. I also think that society benefits from encouraging people to wear seat belts. If it takes a law to get people to do so, then, as a practical matter, that's okay with me. I don't view everything through the prism of an overarching ideology, the way you seem to, so I'm willing to look at each of these issues on its own merits. In these instances, as it turns out, I think that my position on each would at least be "consistent in wanting to mitigate harm," as Dr. X put it.

Regarding your second paragraph, we'd have to compare the number of people who suffer health problems from marijuana usage to the number of people who are injured because they do not use seatbelts (subtracting from that the number of people who escape injury because they didn't wear a seatbelt and the number of people who are helped by marijuana). It's very lazy to compare one car crash with one marijuana user and call it a day.

But what about issues aside from the comparison to seatbelt laws, which admittedly is a bit apples to oranges (rare and often fatal vs. somewhat more common and longer-term effects)? What about the regulation of large sugary drinks for example? What about the regulation of gambling, which is illegal just about everywhere?

AReader is absolutely correct for calling you out on your comment - "I don't view everything through the prism of an overarching ideology, the way you seem to" - as it appears to be as clear to him as it is to me that you are making an ideological cost/benefit argument even as you accuse me of doing the same. In some cases, you want the law to intervene for a perceived social benefit that your ideology supports (without acknowledging social detriments or competing social benefits from non-intervention), and in some cases you don't want the law to intervene to bring about a social benefit that your ideology supports.

As illustrated in a thread this weekend, AReader can't begin to respond to a challenge regarding how his cost/benefit analysis isn't informed by ideology and I suspect you can't either (go back to the earlier thread and try if you like, or give it a shot here).

Your concept of "social benefit" is a bit nebulous and narrow. Why isn't there a "social benefit" to being left alone to make choices for oneself? Do your ideological blinders not let you see that there might be a benefit to that as well as reducing costs of enforcement, including court costs, etc.? I'm willing to acknowledge that there is a logic behind seat belt laws but I think there is a greater social benefit to not having them. At least I acknowledge the existence of a competing social benefit. Also, my ideology is passive - i.e., "not my problem; I don't care" - but yours is active and from all I can tell quite arbitrary.

Oh, sure, now you're going to present EVIDENCE. Well, if I can't just shoot from the hip, rather than attempt to parry your swordplay with other evidence, I'm going home... (Uh, FWIW, that link didn't work, for some reason.)

Talk about prisms, though. I thought AReader was agreeing with ME, given that he often seems to be frustrated by your elegant, though what sometimes appear to be strained, attempts to justify your ideology in the face of practical considerations that he finds more compelling. But you could be right about him calling me out, I guess.

Look, I'm sorry, but I didn't want to get into this debate in the first place, which is why my first two comments to you were non-substantive. I never should have made that comment last night, as I'm really not up for this right now. That being said, I think banning Super Gulps is stupid. I'm ambivalent about gambling.

"In some cases, you want the law to intervene for a perceived social benefit that your ideology supports (without acknowledging social detriments or competing social benefits from non-intervention), and in some cases you don't want the law to intervene to bring about a social benefit that your ideology supports." To me, this is a fine demonstration of how I'm not as ideological as you are. And I "acknowledge" competing detriments and benefits, I just don't think they're determinative in that case.

"Do your ideological blinders not let you see that there might be a benefit to that as well as reducing costs of enforcement, including court costs, etc.?" No, my blinders don't prevent me from seeing that. Again, I don't think those factors outweigh the benefits of the policy -- saving lives, flat out.

"I'm willing to acknowledge that there is a logic behind seat belt laws but I think there is a greater social benefit to not having them." Well, we disagree about that. Surprise! I think there is a greater social benefit in saving lives (and medical treatment costs, etc.) than there is in reducing court costs. So sue me! (Ah, but you can't, because you wouldn't want to incur the court costs!)

You find my "ideology" arbitrary. Fine. Ideology is not my main concern, and I think I'm being flexible.

Yes, I was calling you out and agreeing with Jakash. And, as I told you over the weekend, I didn't have the mental energy for an intellectual response after a draining experience, and then the conversation seemed to have moved on. I'll be glad to go back to it if you want. But let's not get into the insulting "can't even begin to respond" stuff, OK?

As far as marijuana is concerned, I don't actively support legalization, but I won't get exercised if/when it happens either. I think pot is pretty dumb (no offense to those who enjoy it - but it strikes me, medicinal benefits aside, as a drug that makes really boring stuff seem really interesting). In general, I favor policies against people doing dumb things. All things equal, I'd want to keep pot illegal. However, in this case I find the evidence pretty convincing that the current state of the law does more harm than good, practically speaking, due to all the social consequences of it being an illegal enterprise. Gangs, cartels, violence, ridiculous prison sentences, etc.

Similarly, as we saw during Prohibition, a ban on alcohol would do more harm than good, so I wouldn't favor a ban on that dumb thing either (although I would argue that pot is dumb in smaller quantities than alcohol, thus making it somewhat dumber on balance. YMMV.)

Seat belt laws...now you're just making a tortured argument. There is no inherent benefit in "being left alone to make your own choices." In many cases, this is a policy that produces more beneficial results than the other alternatives, but it is not a per se good in all circumstances, except in libertarian ideology. Of course a society can go too far in removing decision-making power from its citizens, but that would be measured by the practical outcomes, not by any reliance on a nebulous idea of "freedom." And that's, once again, why I say you're an ideologue - you value certain ideas more than any consideration of their practical consequences. That's ideology defined.

I don't want to do a whole lot of math here either but I don't have to because we mostly agree. If you are acknowledging that we have competing but valid notions of costs and benefits then we can disagree over the outcome, but let's not pretend that both of us (yes, you too) aren't being ideological. Whether or not you see it as your main concern, I submit that you are acting on ideology anyway. Let me show you what I mean.

You wrote "I think there is a greater social benefit in saving lives (and medical treatment costs, etc.) than there is in reducing court costs." That's entirely fair but we're looking at costs and benefits in different ways. If someone who doesn't use a seatbelt, or engages in other risky behavior, dies at the scene then I don't see many social costs other than the clean up crew. You apparently see a larger social cost there and that's fine but it's also ideological (and rather hard to quantify).

There are medical costs for crash survivors but there are for lung cancer patients too. With seat belt laws, you have court costs, incremental law enforcement costs, etc. Now it's true there are a ton of hidden costs buried in both scenarios (about which we may disagree), which is why we can have a legitimate disagreement about this. My argument that a lost life doesn't impose all that much of a social cost (although it may vary depending on the person) compared to administrative costs and loss of personal autonomy (which is hard to quantify) is ideological but so is the reverse argument that you are making.

My overall point is that we can disagree but if both sides have facts and logic to back up the position then it's hard for me to see how one position is ideological and the other is not.

It must be a testament to your normal mental energy that I assumed you had another reason for not responding.

Your reasoning against marijuana usage is fine but I'm far from convinced that there is any social cost imposed by someone using marijuana, or meth, or blowing his brains out.

Regarding seat belt laws, of course there is an inherent benefit to being allowed to make your own choices. The cost of micromanaging and monitoring every person's every decision is prohibitive and the time spent complying with every directive could be better spent elsewhere. Do you care to define what going "too far in removing decision-making power" means? I bet you come up with an answer that reflects your own ideology. Same with your proposition that leaving people alone may or may not be "a policy that produces more beneficial results than the other alternatives." When is it beneficial and when is it not?

Again, it's funny that you can't recognize your own ideological basis for making value judgments. I'm on board with you that there is solid reasoning behind preventing people from harming themselves but I may just as easily call this an idea that doesn't take into consideration practical consequences. If someone kills himself while attempting a stunt, or overdoses on heroin in his basement, or tries to rob someone and gets shot to death, is society any worse off? Probably not. In many cases, no one is worse off other than that person and the cost of trying to prevent him from self-harm may be less than his contribution to society. This is all very difficult to precisely define and, yes, once again, ideological.

I would say each society probably defines it a little differently, and certainly different people within societies define it differently. But whatever the "sweet spot," it would involve assessing the practical results and consequences of the policies, not giving supreme deference to ideas qua ideas.

"When is it beneficial and when is it not?"

Again, look at the results that are attributable to it. If it produces more of things that as a society we've decided are desirable, or less of undesirable things, then it's beneficial. Of course there may be costs as well, but the cost/benefit analysis is a separate calculation from determining whether benefits exist.

"of course there is an inherent benefit to being allowed to make your own choices. The cost of micromanaging and monitoring every person's every decision is prohibitive and the time spent complying with every directive could be better spent elsewhere."

No, that's not an inherent benefit of the *idea* of individual choice at all - that's a transaction cost of increased governmental involvement. That's exactly one of the practical consequences I'm talking about, one that should of course be weighed against the benefits. But, as above, the weighing of benefits against costs is separate from the existence of benefits.

Whatever ideology is involved in the decision to choose to attempt to save lives rather than to reduce court costs, it certainly doesn't seem to me to be one that divides the average liberal from the average conservative. Do you wear a seatbelt? I'm gonna guess yes. Is it because of a law? I'm gonna guess no. You wear it because you realize that the value of the "freedom" you possess to not wear it pales next to the value of saving your life that wearing it can provide. That's a practical fact, to which ideology takes a back seat (where there's also a seat belt.) Others, not as smart as you, perhaps, may require enticement to do something that's in their best interests, (and society's as well, because we don't want to be saddled with the cost of lifetime care for people avoidably incapacitated in accidents,) but which they may not recognize the value of.

"If someone who doesn't use a seatbelt, or engages in other risky behavior, dies at the scene then I don't see many social costs other than the clean up crew." A classic Greg J. remark. You may consider the idea that any human life has value to be an ideological concept, but, again, this would only be considered ideological by somebody far outside the mainstream in America in 2013, IMHO. (Especially if you change the terms to leave out murderers and whatever small segment of indivduals that some consider to have forfeited their right to life.) In fact, if one wants to discuss ideological consistency, your whole argument against abortion is that EVERY life, from conception on, has value. So how do you reconcile the above attitude with this imaginary Greg J'ish formulation, which I think would be consistent with your above sentence -- "If a fetus has the poor fortune to be conceived by parents who have no interest in bringing it into the world, I see no "social costs" at all if that fetus is aborted. Not my problem, or society's." You've already made it clear that "My argument (is) that a lost life doesn't impose all that much of a social cost..." (Not that I won't regret opening another can of worms.)

"The cost of micromanaging and monitoring every person's every decision is prohibitive and the time spent complying with every directive could be better spent elsewhere." Which is why I support choosing only the most obvious and clearly beneficial interventions with the law -- such as seat belt laws, and not Super Big Gulp bans. I've never felt that the utterly miniscule amount of time spent complying with the seat belt directive would have been used more productively in any other way, myself.

"If someone kills himself while attempting a stunt, or overdoses on heroin in his basement, or tries to rob someone and gets shot to death, is society any worse off?" Isn't this a strawman? We're not discussing these people, we're discussing Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, Franklin Roosevelt, Mother Teresa and Ronald Reagan's lives being saved by seat belts! Clearly a non-ideological win-win...

It's positively stunning that a person as smart as you are can't see the ideological underpinnings of the statements you make regarding weighing costs and benefits.

"I would say each society probably defines it a little differently, and certainly different people within societies define it differently." Based on what? Based on ideology. If there was an empirical answer then every society would agree, right?

"If it produces more of things that as a society we've decided are desirable, or less of undesirable things, then it's beneficial." And that decision is based on? Yes, again, ideology. Otherwise, how does one decide what is desirable or undesirable?

Your focus on weighing the costs and benefits is perhaps the best indicator that you rely on pure ideology even as you deny it: "it would involve assessing the practical results and consequences of the policies, not giving supreme deference to ideas qua ideas." But how you weigh the practical results and consequences is formed by your ideas. It is so abundantly clear that people have real disagreements about how to assess results and consequences. Some think that having more guns is good because it allows people to defend themselves and deters violent criminals; others think that it is bad because of the accidents that may occur. There are studies showing that both outcomes are true. Moreover, no honest conservative denies the existence of accidents and no honest liberal denies the existence of self-defense - no matter how much each side tries to downplay the other side's argument.

It comes down to which outcome you find most compelling, which is how all of us weigh outcomes whenever there is a non-mathematical component whether it's because of unquantifiable variables, value judgments to be made, or any other non-empirical factors present.

The logical endpoint of your argument is that all political issues can come down to a math equation about which we all must agree. That's not the case, which means that ideology informs all of our decision-making processes - even yours.

Maybe the issue is that we're using slightly different definitions of "ideology?" Of course a system of values and priorities, individual and/or societal, comes into play when weighing costs and benefits, or deciding what the desired outcomes are. I don't consider that to be "ideology," nor do I consider those who engage in that process to be ideologues.

As I've tried to explain, I use ideology/ideologue to refer to those who valorize ideas qua ideas, independent and regardless of observed reality. That tends to result in categorical statements ("Government makes everything worse," for example) and fantastical assertions (such as there being no social cost to meth use).

The idea that human life has value is an ideological concept. It has to be. My own belief that human life has value is informed by my religion. In the purely social context, I wouldn't be so quick to draw that conclusion. Some people are net producers and some are net "takers" (for lack of a better term). I've never argued that neither morality nor ideology shouldn't be considered when making laws. In fact, the basis of my entire argument is that you do too and it's obvious you are doing it here (more on that in a minute).

Our argument, and indeed my argument with our friend AReader, is where to draw the line? When it comes to abortion, I'm opposed because I think that every person should have a chance to make what he wants out of his life. Once he is born, subject to very few exceptions (e.g., abuse, severe poverty), I want the law to leave him to his own devices. You want the law to protect him even further - e.g., from his own bad decisions. Are you denying that your ideology led you to make that choice? Are you denying that your ideology led you to your position that his right to be born is outweighed by the burden placed on his mother who didn't want to have him? I don't see how you can arrive at either conclusion without an ideological conviction.

Again, I respect your belief system and how you weigh costs and benefits (same goes for respecting AReaders'). You and I agree on marijuana legalization, soft drink bans, and I'm sure a whole lot of other personal freedom issues. I'm not for personal freedom all of the time - e.g., I agree with a military draft when necessary, zoning, and a host of other constraints - but I may lean closer toward personal freedom on an issue-by-issue basis than you do. None of this changes the obvious fact that we're engaged in a line-drawing exercise to determine what the scope of government authority should be and we draw the lines differently. This is based on our values, biases, ideologies, or whatever name you want to give it. There is nothing wrong with having an ideology or basing decisions upon it, and I think I've shown that all three of us do it. I'm confused about why you and AReader don't want to own it.

"The idea that human life has value is an ideological concept. It has to be." That sounds like a plea, or a statement, not an argument. My point is that the value of human life, to humans, crosses all ideological boundaries, at least until one gets to sociopathy or mental illness. Those on the far right all the way to the far left accept human life as a value. The arguments are about how political considerations are interpreted with regard to the value of human life, and, with regard to abortion, at what point a human life becomes viable, for political purposes.

"My own belief that human life has value is informed by my religion." I certainly don't want to argue about your faith, and please excuse the cheekiness, but, based on many, many statements that you've made on various threads -- not particularly WELL informed, I gotta say.

You neglected to address the first paragraph of my last post. Assuming that you wear a seatbelt, you wear it because you realize that the value of the "freedom" you possess to not wear it, i.e., the exercise of your libertarian ideology in thwarting "the Man" and his dictates, pales next to the value of saving your life that wearing it can provide. The possibility that the seat belt will save your life is a practical fact, which ideology can do nothing to alter. Yet your ideological perspective causes you to insist that seat belt laws, which save many lives, are a bad idea.

Somehow, this whole thread has now boiled down to whether or not AReader and I base our decisions on ideology, and if so, to the extent that you do. Let's go back to your original comment here: "I'm with Jakash on this one and agree with the reasons in Jakash's 2:23PM comment for why we should legalize. The same mentality should drive our decisions to get rid of seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, gambling laws, etc." The idea that "the same mentality should drive our decisions" with regard to ALL of those issues is the very definition of an ideologically motivated argument. The fact that I would view each of those matters, and the "etc.", as individual issues, subject to rational analysis of their own idiosyncratic attributes, is different in kind from your ideological approach.

As for my not wanting to "own" my ideological perspective, I've said a couple things. "I don't view everything through the prism of an overarching ideology, the way you seem to, so I'm willing to look at each of these issues on its own merits." and "I'm not as ideological as you are." I conceded that "You find my 'ideology' arbitrary. Fine. Ideology is not my main concern." I never said or suggested that I base nothing I think or do on ideology. But, I don't consider the idea that human life has value to be an ideological concept, in the way that we discuss ideology on these threads. I consider it a universal value. So, my interest in promoting seat belt use through legal means is based on that universal value, in my mind, not on ideology. This is my problem with your criticisms in your last few comments -- if we want to talk about abortion, then I would concede that ideology comes into play there. So, yes, of course, I am subject to ideological considerations when it comes to certain issues. But I don't think this seat belt thing is one of them. Seems to me that the very reason that you consider my ideology "arbitrary" is exactly BECAUSE I'm not as ideological as you are, and base my reasoning on other factors than simply ideology, in many instances.

What you wrote is entirely fair. We may be using a different definition of ideology. If I've taken positions that are not in line with observed reality then it's basically the same as not supporting an argument with facts, and I'd deserve to be called out on that. I'm not interested in arguing nitpicky definitions of ideology or having a gotcha moment based on what Webster's says. Rather, I'm trying to show that one's idea of social benefits and costs can be very different depending on what type of society one wants to live in. In my opinion, liberals and conservatives view social outcomes very differently and the separation has become so great that if you catch them in an honest moment they may have to agree that they don't want to live in the same type of society.

I think an important thing to remember is that sometimes in the course of our discussions we are discussing the practical and sometimes the theoretical. If, for instance, I contend that any cut in government or taxes is fine with me, I'm referring to the practical because I'm convinced that the current costs of government are so high relative to the benefits that any cut that would actually be agreed upon in practice moves us in the right direction. However, I've consistently advocated a strong military, a welfare safety net, and setting and enforcing rules in the marketplace. I just happen to think we have either too much or serious inefficiencies related to all of those things and any cut should be welcome.

Regarding the social costs of meth, I'm far from convinced that it's a big deal. Is the state any worse off if someone uses meth? I could make an argument either way (but the answer is either that the state is unaffected or that it's harmed - of course it's not benefited). I do think the costs of policing it are higher than the benefits of interfering in a person's decision to use. I think that government actually makes the problem worse when it tries to intervene for the same reasons that Jakash and I cite when it comes to marijuana (i.e., the war on drugs bolsters criminal activity).

Both of these examples get us back to the same place - we view costs, benefits, and outcomes based on the society we want to be a part of. I think that our increasing diversity creates larger splits over what that society looks like, and makes agreement harder to come by.

That was a very thoughtful response but I'm not sure if it leads to more agreement or disagreement.

"My point is that the value of human life, to humans, crosses all ideological boundaries, at least until one gets to sociopathy or mental illness." I'll agree with that but there is a distinction between the value of preserving life by requiring people to do certain things and the value of leaving people alone to do what they want to do. One of my biggest problems with paternalism is that it causes a deterioration in one's ability to think and act for himself. At best, it causes minor inconveniences (dealing with seat belt laws when you forget to put one on) and at worst it creates a cycle of dependency that, in my opinion, has led certain minority populations located in certain places to become a permanent underclass. Losing one's survival instincts by being treated like a child is not a good thing.

"I certainly don't want to argue about your faith, and please excuse the cheekiness, but, based on many, many statements that you've made on various threads -- not particularly WELL informed, I gotta say."

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. I'm not the least bit offended but I am stumped.

"Assuming that you wear a seatbelt, you wear it because you realize that the value of the "freedom" you possess to not wear it, i.e., the exercise of your libertarian ideology in thwarting "the Man" and his dictates, pales next to the value of saving your life that wearing it can provide."

Any libertarianism or conservatism I possess has more to do with practical concerns rather than wanting to thwart anyone. I consider seat belt laws to be excessive paternalism that does harm to us by causing us not to think for ourselves and create policing costs that would be best aimed elsewhere.

"The possibility that the seat belt will save your life is a practical fact, which ideology can do nothing to alter. Yet your ideological perspective causes you to insist that seat belt laws, which save many lives, are a bad idea."

I agree with your first sentence but, again, I don't want the state to be in the business of saving us from ourselves. I think we are in a much better position to know what is good for us than the state is. We have as much information as we need to make our own choices and we know more about ourselves than the state does. If I decide to not wear a seatbelt because I'm just moving my car into a different parking space, I've determined that the benefit of that is greater than the cost of being harmed in an accident given the tiny probability that will happen. Others should be free to make their own cost/benefit determinations because they know their own situation better than the state does at that time.

"The idea that 'the same mentality should drive our decisions' with regard to ALL of those issues is the very definition of an ideologically motivated argument. The fact that I would view each of those matters, and the "etc.", as individual issues, subject to rational analysis of their own idiosyncratic attributes, is different in kind from your ideological approach."

Respectfully, no it isn't. All that means is that you are applying ideology on an ad hoc basis. I'm simply asking you to keep your reasoning consistent. For example, if you are concerned about lung cancer risks from second hand cigarette smoke but not marijuana; or if you underestimate the damage that obesity causes to many people but overestimate how many people are injured by not wearing seat belts, then you have a logical problem. I'm not saying your logic is faulty, and maybe your positions are all very well thought out, but I'm skeptical.

"So, my interest in promoting seat belt use through legal means is based on that universal value, in my mind, not on ideology."

That's fine if you want to think about it that way but you are substituting one's own judgment for the state's and that is ideological. Again, you can argue that the state knows best or that an individual knows best, but there are plenty of times where seat belt use is impractical. I concede that my wanting the individual to decide is ideological too but it's backed by the reasoning that the individual is in the best position at that time to make the judgment call. Your reasoning is that the state is always making the right call and/or seat belt use is always a good idea. I have a problem with that.

As I discussed with AReader, the two of you and I have very different concepts of social costs, benefits, and outcomes. It's astounding to someone like me about how much you trust the state to make one-size-fits-all decisions when it's almost always in a position of ignorance as to one's particular circumstances. Similarly, it's astounding to you why I defer to individual judgment when so many people make so many bad decisions.

The conversation around life having a universal value is interesting and I want to think about it more. What could be going on here is that you recognize that life has value (as does almost everyone else) so you assume that the state must have an interest in preserving it from its self-destructive tendencies. I agree that life has value but I disagree that the state has much of an interest in saving someone from himself (saving it from others is different). Why? It may be because I think that self-preservation is between the individual and God, which allows me to look at the state's interest in more empirical terms. Anyway, it's very interesting and I haven't thought it all the way through.

A quick thought experiment: Which state is better off, a state where no one does meth or a state with a bunch of meth addicts? In terms of real outcomes like crime, health care costs, etc. etc. etc., not taking into consideration your ideals of what individual liberty should be? If your answer is "the former," then you per se have to admit that there's a social cost to doing meth (unless you seriously intend to make the argument that "recreational" meth use won't lead to meth addiction - if so good luck with that).

But In the end I wholeheartedly agree with this:

"In my opinion, liberals and conservatives view social outcomes very differently and the separation has become so great that if you catch them in an honest moment they may have to agree that they don't want to live in the same type of society."

So I'd say that's a pretty good place to bring this particular go-round to a close, no?

Regarding your first paragraph, yes, there are indirect social costs related to narcotics and no real social benefits. Therefore, a state where no one does meth because no one wants to do meth is better off than the state with a bunch of meth addicts. Please allow me to amend an earlier statement that I made - "I'm far from convinced that there is any social cost imposed by someone using marijuana, or meth, or blowing his brains out" - to apply only to direct social costs.

However, in the real world, I believe that the state with the meth addicts may be better off. If you want to talk about indirect costs, you have to concede that the state with a bunch of meth addicts MAY be better off because it doesn't expend resources on policing meth use and the criminal activities may be reduced. I think your answer here depends on whether you think the war on drugs can produce or has produced good results.

Anyway, I'm all for ending the discussion on a note of agreement and will gladly do so now (unless you want to chat about meth). Let me leave you with one thought, which is not a question or challenge, but something to ponder. Read my last paragraph in my last response to Jakash and think about the statement I made above with regard to decisions that only affect the individual having no direct social costs (I concede that there are indirect costs). There is something there that I haven't quite been able to draw out that may be significant in understanding our difference in worldviews. I wonder if people who are non-religious look for protection from the state from purely individual harm because they don't "need" God whereas people who are religious look to God because they don't see how the state itself is harmed.

--"I think we are in a much better position to know what is good for us than the state is." The specific case that we're discussing here, of somebody who thinks that not wearing a seat belt is good for them, indicates that this is demonstrably untrue.

"We have as much information as we need to make our own choices..." Speak for yourself, my friend. C'mon, not everybody is as informed as you and most of the commenters here are.

"If I decide to not wear a seatbelt because I'm just moving my car into a different parking space, I've determined that the benefit of that is greater than the cost of being harmed in an accident given the tiny probability that will happen." C'mon, again. This is a lame example, with all due respect. You've also determined that there's a tiny probability of getting a ticket in that instance, and you're right about that, but this is just an example of how laws are not the finely calibrated instruments we might wish they were, whether they're worthwhile, or not. I don't find the solution of having NO laws because of that to be logical.

"if you are concerned about lung cancer risks from second hand cigarette smoke but not marijuana; or if you underestimate the damage that obesity causes to many people but overestimate how many people are injured by not wearing seat belts, then you have a logical problem."
I'm not as concerned about the risks from second hand smoke, for myself, as that I find it to be an unwarranted annoyance. I concede that there are other annoyances that are not prohibited in bars and restaurants and that the prohibition of smoking is fairly arbitrary. Though I don't believe that the danger from the occasional intake of marijuana is as significant as the danger from spending all night working in a smoke-filled bar, and, as I noted, one doesn't need to "smoke" marijuana at all to obtain its effects. If there were a solution to obesity that were as easy as insisting that people wear seat belts, I might back that, too. Obesity is a FAR more complicated problem than stopping somebody from going through a windshield, and applying the same ideology indiscriminately to both of those problems is to be overly ideological, in my view, which is why I think the Super Big Gulp ban was stupid.

"the individual is in the best position at that time to make the judgment call" No. Again, not all individuals are informed enough to make the best judgment call. "seat belt use is always a good idea" Practically, in a world of many complicated choices, this is somewhat close to true. Not much in this life can approach the standard of "always," of course.

"My own belief that human life has value is informed by my religion." When I said "not particularly WELL informed," I was referring to comments like: "If someone kills himself while attempting a stunt, or overdoses on heroin in his basement, or tries to rob someone and gets shot to death, is society any worse off? Probably not." I'm not gonna look up the quotes, but ones where you pretty well indicated that Zimmerman and Martin were both fools, so guys like them not being around anymore is not such a bad idea. And the thread where you said that if somebody were to try to steal your cell phone, or even one penny, from you, you'd be justified in killing them. Comments like those, (and there are plenty of others that you've made) are where I find that your libertarian view of life and the core tenets of your Christian religion don't line up particularly well. With a giant IMHO, of course.

Well, you've done it again, buddy. On a thread about marijuana, in which you agreed with me, you've suckered me into debating your libertarian view of seat belt laws for way too much time. It's been about as productive as usual, I'd say. ; ) I wish I could have come up with a note of agreement, like you did with AReader, but, regardless, I'm out, too!

I don't have any desire to extend the meth discussion, but briefly: I don't really see any point in distinguishing between "direct" and "indirect" social costs when the outcome is the same. Costs are costs, and the society pays them one way or the other.

I think we measure productivity in different ways too. You challenged my views and I'm better off for that, so I thank you. I'm always interested in getting smarter. Let's move on and visit in other threads.

A quick word of explanation (not a challenge or a question or a last word). I agree that the average person isn't as informed as most of us but I believe he is at least as informed than the average government official. My flippant remarks about Zimmerman and Martin are only a reflection of the view that idiots usually end up in trouble, at best, or dead, at worst. Observing that society may be better off without them doesn't mean I'm glad that they are dead (it does mean that I'm blunt and harbor low expectations for certain folks). What I'm doing (in my own mind, at least) is separating their contribution to society from the moral question. Maybe a somewhat libertarian Catholic is in the best position to do that? (Wait, I didn't disclaim hypothetical questions, right? Aaargghh, don't answer that, I just did it again). Anyway, that's how I explain it and manage to sleep at night (alcohol helps too).

@AReader,

The only distinction I draw is that direct costs are more probable and quantifiable than indirect costs. However, the indirect costs can be worse in some instances (law of unintended consequences, anyone?).

Happy Friday as well, Greg. Not to belabor the discussion, but I can't help pointing out that you do seem to make more of a distinction between direct and indirect social costs, namely that actions with what you view to be only indirect social costs should be entirely up to the individual, as opposed to those with direct social costs.

That makes no sense to me, because as I said, costs are costs. The individual shouldn't be free to impose indirect social costs any more than direct, regardless of how much you think that freedom should be.

To which you might respond that direct costs are more probable/quantifiable and thus are different in kind rather than degree. I disagree with that, but moreover, I also don't think the premise that direct costs are more probable/quantifiable is always true. In some cases, sure. But the indirect consequences of many of the things we've talked about are predictable, carry at least a significant probability of occurring in the aggregate (if significant numbers of people don't use seat belts or do use meth, medical costs and loss of life will almost certainly happen), and can be quantified at least as readily as the costs you label as direct. So it strikes me that your direct/indirect consequence distinction is more a convenience that allows you to maintain your ideological position than something based in practical reality.

Not trying to get the last word here - if you'd like to respond, feel free and then we can move on or continue as you like.

Ah, maybe not much of a disagreement after all regarding direct and indirect costs. Let's go back to meth, which is so appropriate for a Friday - unless you're more of a beer guy, which I totally respect.

I completely agree with you that indirect costs shouldn't be viewed differently from direct costs provided they are as sound (in terms of probability and quantifiability). The difference is that a lot of indirect costs aren't as sound. We hear proponents of the drug war talk about people robbing and killing to get their fix and/or because the drugs make them crazy. My response is that it's not illogical but it's rather hard to pin down. I think you get that. But it's more than a rhetorical convenience if you're really being scientific or mathematical about it.

I'm all for banning drugs that really do cause people to lose control to such a degree that they are likely to harm people but I've been to quite a few parties where cocaine and other hard stuff was present and widely used, and I don't see it as that big of a deal.

Your turn toward the very personal effects of drug use (medical costs and loss of life) leads me back to the comparisons with other unsafe behavior and the question of whether a self-imposed loss of life is an appropriate matter for legal concern (as opposed to moral concern), which we've already covered. At that point, we get on the old merry-go-round where I shake my head at those who are cool with abortion but want all these public safety laws (to which they respond that a person isn't a person until he's a person), and they complain that I'm nuts to be so concerned about people before they are born but not after (to which I respond that most adults are better equipped to make decisions for themselves than officials who have never met them, let alone walked in their shoes). You almost need to be under the influence of something to go through that conversation - can we agree on that?

Wait a sec, you allude to the need to be scientific and mathematical, and then you cite as your data your experience at "quite a few parties?"

Most of the harder drugs do cause at least some significant number of people to lose control to such a degree that they're likely to harm people. Apparently you weren't partying with addicts, but come on - you know the problems of robbery and violence in service of addiction are very real. If you isolate your sample to the one-night behavior you observed from people at a particular party, you could probably ignore it, but you're smarter than that. Moreover, medical costs and loss of life are far from "very personal" effects. They're very much social costs, whether it be the cost of treatment for addiction (borne by taxpayers or by consumers of insurance paying higher rates), the opportunity cost of police time used to deal with drug crime, or the loss of productivity and/or costs of government benefits to those who aren't able to function due to addiction.

This does not obviate the need for costs to be weighed against the benefits of drug laws, but the calculus is very different than you seem to acknowledge. Once again, Greg, your perception is filtered through libertarian ideology - the fantasy that nearly every aspect of one's behavior only affects oneself and the only thing that affects one's behavior is individual initiative. Punctuated for emphasis: It's. Just. Not. True.

Anyway, yes, we can absolutely agree that there's nothing to be gained from getting on the abortion merry-go-round. I hope you have some fun planned for this evening, but say no to drugs at those parties, young man! Me, although all this talk about meth has surely gotten me primed to start cooking some up in my basement lab, I'll have to settle for several beers over the course of my gig tonight.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.